Monday, January 23, 2006

A look at Tom Glavine and his new pitch strategy…as he chases 300 wins.

On his quest for some early wynns…..I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a goal and I certainly feel a whole lot better about my chances than I did last April or May.

But it’s not something that’s so important to me that I would play another seven or eight years, winning four games a year, to get it. I want to pitch at a certain level. I want to do it in two years and, physically, I think I should have no problem pitching two years unless something crazy happens.

Personally, I’ve enjoyed it here. I know there are some people who will look at what I’ve done and say I’m a bust, I wasn’t worth it. In many ways, I think I’ve pitched well. The first year (when he was 9-14) wasn’t too good, but the last two (when he was a combined 24-27) could’ve been really good with a little luck.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Well, he was good enough to get a team with the highest payroll in the National League into a pennant race in early September whereupon they choked. I don't know any Mets fan who is happy about spending $30 million (soon to be $40 million) for this Atlanta Brave. Did he help get Martinez and Beltran in New York? I doubt it, Minaya opening up the Wilpon's wallet (plus the Yankees refusing to get involved) brought those two there. Perhaps Glavine is honestly happy with his change but I always wonder if the Mets had offered what the Braves did (2 years, $20 million) and the Braves had offered the 4 years $40 million where he would have signed.

I thought Glavine was essentially done after 2003, and would just spiral down further into decline. I am pretty impressed with what he has done the last two years. Sure the Mets are paying for more than what they are getting, but most everyone knew that would be the case going in. Glavine deserves alot of credit for the ERA+ he has put up the last two seasons.

I mean the man pitched 211 Inn last year and was 14th in the NL in ERA. Shea or no Shea...thats pretty darn good. Of course the flip side of pitching in Shea is you end up 33 out of 49 in run support, hence the 13-13 record.

Well, he was good enough to get a team with the highest payroll in the National League into a pennant race in early September whereupon they choked. I don't know any Mets fan who is happy about spending $30 million (soon to be $40 million) for this Atlanta Brave.

That is a pretty strange characterization of the facts. Glavine "got" the Mets into the pennant race last year? To me, that implies he carried them to the doorstep and then the rest of the guys ("they") choked. I guess you could say that Pedro got the team into the race. You could say it about David Wright and Cliff Floyd. But I certainly wouldn't say it about Glavine.

And as far as being happy to have spent the $$$ on him, I wasn't at the time, and I'm not thrilled about it even now. But I've certainly never been so comfortable with it as I am right now. The Glavine I saw in the second half last year was a Glavine I have no problem at all with as a # 2 starter. And until I see that it wasn't a real turn-around, built to last, I'm going to assume it was and that he'll continue to be effective. Would the money have been better spent elsewhere? I have no idea. But since it was Steve Phillips who signed him, there is pretty good reason to believe that the alternative to Glavine was taking the money and burning it in a nice big bonfire in the Shea parking lot. Good for toasting marshmallows. Not so good for baseball.

Glavine has been emphatic about how he wants to be in New York because his (or his wife's) parents live in New Jersey so his kids can know their grandparents. Well, maybe. But as I said, I wonder if he would do so if Atlanta offered more. I have no problems with anyone getting more money, just be honest like Anya the former Justice Demon and say so. As Anna Benson said when Kris said "what is the difference between $15 and $20 million" dude, about $5 million. But Glavine did have a decent year after a bad second half 2004 and first half 2005.
He also upset a lot of people his first year continually whining about Questec.

Sam, I am sure at least some of the justification for bringing Glavine is was "clubhouse leadership, teach players how to win", some of the Atlanta Brave pennant race performance. Perhaps it is expecting too much to teach a lot of veterans (Martinez,Beltran, Floyd, Piazza, Hernenadez, Looper) "how to win" but getting paid $10 million is not exactly rational either. As far as Steve Phillips making another nitwit decsion, well, what else would you expect from someone who is employed by ESPN? At least the Wilpons didn't give him a lifetime contract as Jon Heyman said he deserved when he signed Glavine.

And until I see that it wasn't a real turn-around, built to last, I'm going to assume it was and that he'll continue to be effective.

That's an... interesting burden of proof there.

What the heck else is there to do for a fan of the team? Grumble and mope about how the guy is about to implode? If I was doing a serious projection, obviously it'd be different. From a fan's-eye view, I choose rose-colored glasses.

I think that Glavine's trade value as a Met never was and never will be higher; if the right offer came along I'd move him without thinking twice.

I suppose in a narrow sense that's true: before 2005, he had zero trade value as an old pitcher with a huge contract and so-so performance in his last two years. Now, he has more value than that, as the market has caught up to his contract and he's had two solid years in a row.

But seriously. "More value" isn't the same as all that much value, and Glavine doesn't have all that much. He's still expensive, so there are a limited number of teams that would want him, and his performance is open to question. I'd be stunned if the Mets could get anything for him that would be worth as much to them as the season he might provide this year.

BTW, for all the Peterson-haters out there, does this article make even the slightest impact on you? Will you give him some credit for helping spur Glavine's turn-around in 2005? Probably not . . . .

Do you think they could have just substituted Glavin in the Benson deal just past instead of Mr. Anna?

I doubt it. Duquette clearly thinks well of Benson, having signed him as a FA, and Benson is locked up for two years rather than just one.

Plus, I wouldn't have wanted them to do that. I think Glavine is a strong bet to be better than Benson in 2006, and the Mets are trying to win this year. Glavine MIGHT be a # 2 quality starter -- I wouldn't bet the ranch on it, but he might be. I don't see Benson as likely to be any better than league average, and that won't do for the second-best starter on a team w/ post-season aspirations.

Glavine hasn't been worth the money but he hasn't been nearly as bad as expected. I'd rather him as our number three than our number two because of the expected decline that is always just around the corner, but how many teams can say they have a guy who has posted a 118 ERA+ the past two seasons as their number three starter? That's not to say that I won't be comfortable letting him walk away after this season. And for all the money the Mets have spent this offseason, they just purged Benson and have Glavine and Floyd coming off of the books next season. So the Mets can add $20 mil in 2007 salaries next offseason and listen to everybody else whine about how they're spending all this money and becoming the Yankees and their payroll will barely go up a dime.

Heck, from a dispassionate market perspective, I think that Glavine's trade value as a Met never was and never will be higher; if the right offer came along I'd move him without thinking twice.

For what purpose? There is nobody the Mets could get in a trade who would be expected to be better than Glavine in 2005. The guy is overpriced and old but he is still a decent pitcher. His contract is up after 2006. The only reason to trade him would be to cut payroll in 2006 and I don't think that's really the Mets' objective at this point.

speaking of Met fans with hatred of Rick Peterson, Joe Beningo on WFAN just took a few minutes off talking about NFL sunday to criticize the Anna trade ("how do I know what relievers will do? Never trade starters for them").He also slammed Peterson for getting rid of Seo and having Zambrano in the rotation instead of Seo or Anna's hubby.
I always find it interesting how people who slam Billy Beane/Moneyball as being "Zito/Hudson/Muldur" don't want to credit their pitching coach.
The idea of trading Glavine now when they are in a position to contend is not Wilpon modus operandi. Maybe if they drop out they will like they did in 1992 with Cone for Kent and Thompson (after losing Viola and Strawberry as free agents the previous years).

Glavine better win 300 games for the sake of the Hall-voting-sportswriters. Otherwise, they may have to put their thinking caps on and that can be dangerous.
Here are the two columns that will accompany most sportwriters ballots in 2014Glavine Gets to 300
"While he alsways seemed to be playing second fiddle to names such as Maddux and Pedro, and while his heater never matched that of the Big Unit, Glavine, the slender, soft-tossing arbiter of pitching strategy, quietly amassed 300 wins over his career. 300 might seem like a nice round number, but it indicates much more than simply wins. It indicates a desie to get the job done. It indicates persistence, and it indicates a willingness to succeed in in times of adversity. Glavine represented all of these traits in spades, as indicated by his 300 wins. The "magic 300" is what seperates the Chritsy Mathewsons, Walter Johnson, Lefty Groves, Nolan Ryans and Warren Spahns from the also-rans like Bert Blyleven and Luis Tiants of the world. "300" indicates superstardom over a long period of time. But Glavine didn't just sit out there until he was a shriveled raisin , pitching mediocorlly just looking for that elusive "300" (Think Tommy John)...No, he dominated. In 1991 and 1998 he brought home the wares in the form of two shiny Cy Youngs. Chrisy Mathewson never even won the award! Nor did a list of other greats, including Lefty Grove, Nolan Ryan, Walter Johnson and the immortal Carl Hubbel and the Lovable Dizzy Dean. Heck,even Cy Young himself never won the award. Glavine was a proven winner, leading the Braves to post-seasons on a yearly basis. Add to that his 8 ALL STAR appearences and you'lve got the clear-cut making of a Hall of Famer. And that is why, when push comes to shove, this voter is voting for Glavine, along with my holdovers from last season: Steve Garvey, Jim Rice, Orel Hersheiser, Curt Schilling, David Wells, Larry Walker, Robin Ventura, Rueben Sierra, and Luis "Rings" Sojo to enter the Hall of Fame.

GLAVINE blows his arm out in 2009 and finishes with 299 wins
A lot of people ask why baseball statistics seem to have such an exotic allure to most die-hard fans like me. The answer is simple: Stats, whether they be traditional stats like RBIs and Home Runs, or newer, more analytical stats like Saves, Slugging Percentage and Game-winning RBIs, offer the fan an objective way to analyze and compare their favorites. Frequently, when we look at stats, we realize that a player that we seem to remember being great doesn't quite make the grade in the historical pantheons of baseball lore. For instance, many people seem to remember Stan Musial as being one of the greatest hitters of all time. However, his 475 Home Runs were fewer than Fred Mcgriff, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa. In the meantime, his batting average was not exactly stellar. Dave Orr (.342), John Pacioriek (1000) and Lefty O'Doul (.349), Jake Stenzel (.338) and Pete Browning (.341) are all on the outside looking in at Cooperstown, yet they all bested Stan Musial at the plate.
That being said, a lot of sportwriters, particularly those that put their faith in Statistics rather than their memories, seem to put too much credence in numbers when analyzing performance. For this reason, they will use all sorts of Mathematical Trickery to make various baseball arguments that simply do not comport to history. This has ebbed this season as numerous wrtiers are lining up to vote "Mediocore" Tom Glavine into the Hall of Fame. Unlike the greats, names like E.R.A. giant Chrsity Mathewson, all-time strikeout king Nolan Ryan, Blazing fastballer Walter Johnson or Cy Young, Glavine failed to win 300 games. "300" is not just some magical number. Just the opposite. A pitcher's job is to WIN ballgames, not to pad his stats with Strikeouts, blazing fastballs or flashy E.R.A. numbers. The Manager of a team doesn't slap a pitcher on the fanny and yell: "Nolan, go out there and drop some E.R.A. points...Go out there and get your K/9 Innings rates up...for the TEam!" No, any manager worth his salt reminds his player that the ultimate goal is to win, be it a 10-9 win or a 1-0 shutout. "300" wins indicates persistence, consitincy and dominance in the pursuit of wins, and Tom Glavine simply does not make the cut. Now critics and so caled "experts" will ask: What is the difference in 1 win, he just about made it. Any athlete will tell you that, in sports, "Just about getting the job don" is no excuse. The question is, what was that 1 win that left Glavine short of 300. Perhaps it was a Game 7 in a world series, perhaps it was a Late September game that cost his team the pennant. 1 Win does matter. If Hall of Famer (elected 2007) Jack Morris "almost" beat Atlanta in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, would he be immortalized in Cooperstwon now? Didn't think so. Did Don Larsen almost pitch a "perfect game" in the 1956 World Series? NO!: He got the job done. Did Kirk Gibson's drive land in Jose Canseco's mitt on the warning track in 1988? 1 Win does matter, and when Glavine needed it most, he ran out of gas. Sure you can point to Glavine's 2 Cy Young trophies, his 8 all star games or his World Series ring in 1995. But I remind you that such also-rans as Marc Davis, Steve Bedrosian, Dean Chance and Eric "blowout" Gagne have Cy Young's in their name, and you don't exactly see writers clamoring to let them into the hallowed halls of Cooperstown. On the other hand, such greats as Nolan Ryan, Lefty Grove and even Cy Young himself never won the supposedly "prestigious" award. Do we measure Hall of Famers by awards? Of course not! If we did, every Rolaids RElief winner and Comeback player of the year would be enshrined alongside 5 time Cy Young Winner Randy Johnson and 7 time MVP Barry Bonds.
"Experts" and "SABR-maticians" (or as I call them "SABR-magicians" due to their ability to make scrubs like Bobby Grich or Bert Blyleven instantly become Hall-worthy)usually love to point out that Glavine made it to 8 All Star Games. I'lve got news for you: Lance Carter and Damasco Garcia made all star appearences, are they Hal worthy? Stan Musial, a player that never even hit 500 Home Runs, was in 19 All Star Games. When it comes to measuring greatness, All Star appearences and trophies and awards do not equal a Hall of Famer. Glavine pitched for 22 seasons,...what happened during those other 14 seasons when Glavine wasn't an All Star, shouldn't we take the "non-All Star" factor into account.
Perhaps Glavine's greatest shortcoming is the fact that he never won a Gold Glove award. This is an honor that the true great, Greg Maddux, who was Batman to Glavine's robin, won the Gold GLove 16 times, and Ozzie Smith won 12 Times. Apparently, nobody informed Glavine that Pitching is only half of his job,...a player wears a glove for a reason.
For the above reasons, this writer finds it unconsiouable to elect Tom Glavine into the Hall of Fame. The Hallowed Halls are reserved for superstars with flashy names that evoke their dominance, guys like Dizzy Dean and Catfish Hunter, not mediocore players who happen to pitch at a "Bert Blyleven" rate for a few decades. For that reason, "Thomas" is simply not "Dizzy" or "Big Train" and Glavine will have to save his induction speech for the "Hall of the slightly above Average".
The rest of my ballot will include hold-overs from last season: Steve Garvey, Jose Canseco, Jim Rice, Greg "50 Homers" Vaughn, Luis "Rings" Sojo, Scott Brosious, Jorge Posade, Paul O'Neill and Joe Girardi

("how do I know what relievers will do? Never trade starters for them").

For a talk radio idiot, I don't really have a problem with this statement. I wish it weren't so absolute; certainly I'd trade a horrible "starter" for Francisco Rodriguez. But generally, relievers are harder to evaluate and project because of sample size issues.

So he may not be correct for the right reasons, but he's essentially correct.

I've always felt that the only reason Glavine ever took the Mets offer was that he was such a big union guy. He HAD to take the highest offer.

The difference between the two offers wasn't that great, either. The supposed hold up at the end was about an extra year. That was all the difference. I'm sure he regrets his choice, even though he gets to be closer to home.

A large number of his most-similars were quite effective at 40-41: Spahn, Seaver, Sutton, Perry. John even had a decent year at 44. His most similar, Jack Morris, was done at 39 though. He was a different kind of pitcher though (not that prime Seaver wasn't).

Because of Peterson's unfortunate 10-minute quote about Zambrano, there is a segment of Mets fans who will always hate him. Those people are best ignored.

The dislike of Peterson goes far behind that one comment. It has more to do with his serious ego problems . He also seems to have much too influence on transactions, which isn't his fault but he contributes to idiotic moves.

The dislike of Peterson goes far behind that one comment. It has more to do with his serious ego problems . He also seems to have much too influence on transactions, which isn't his fault but he contributes to idiotic moves.

So, you don't like that someone associated with professional sports has a big ego? And if he has too much influence on transactions, is that his problem or the GM's?

As for his ability, Trachsel is the only major league NYM pitcher to have a significant injury since Peterson took over, and that was a back injury. Humber was the only top pitching prospect to have a significant injury and he was only in the system for 2+ months.

Well, here's hoping that Heilman pitches like a #1 draft pick this year, not Kris Benson. Who knows, maybe the guy will be outstanding. I'd have to think he's got a better chance of it than Benson. If Pedro and Glavine pitch sort of like they did this past year and Heilman steps up, and we get 100 ERA+ out of Zambrano and Trachsel on the back end, then we could really have something.